DOCSLIB.ORG

Constitutional Amendments and the Right to Vote Some Reflections On

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Constitutional Amendments and the Right to Vote Some Reflections On Constitutional Amendments and the Right to Vote Some Reflections on History Alexander Keyssar Kennedy School of Government Harvard University For the “Claiming Democracy” conference, Washington, D.C., November, 2003. Please do not cite or circulate without permission of the author. More amendments to the United States constitution have dealt with the right to vote than with any other single subject. The phrase “the right to vote” made its first constitutional appearance in the Fourteenth Amendment (1868), and over the next century six other amendments expanded the ability of Americans to participate in elections. The Fifteenth (1870) and Nineteenth (1920) amendments eliminated race and sex as legal barriers to enfranchisement in all elections (federal, state, and local), while the Twenty-sixth (1971) amendment specified that there could be no age restrictions on suffrage for those who were at least eighteen years old. The Seventeenth amendment (1913) provided for the popular election of senators; the Twenty-third (1961) authorized the District of Columbia to participate in presidential elections; and the Twenty-fourth (1964) eliminated the poll tax in federal elections. That such amendments have been so numerous was, of course, a consequence of both the early date and the design of the constitution itself. Few, if any, of the late eighteenth-century framers would have supported even a white male approximation of universal suffrage, and most were inclined to view voting as a privilege rather than a right; there was no way, thus, that a “right to vote” could have been inscribed in our fundamental law, as it has been in many constitutions written in the twentieth century. Moreover, for pragmatic political reasons –having to do largely with the politics of constitutional ratification – the framers decided to let individual states define the breadth of the franchise, which the states commonly did in their own constitutions. Change in the legal and constitutional status of the right to vote unfolded over the course of two centuries, both in the states and, later, in federal law. Most – but by no means all – of these changes involved expansion of the franchise. (The contractions were of great significance to our political history, but are of less concern here.) And most were piecemeal, rather than wholesale, changes. The “typical” alteration in suffrage law was crafted in a state constitutional convention, with a rewriting of the suffrage provision, eliminating one or more previously existing restrictions on voting. Why Was Anyone Else Cut in on the Deal? Perhaps the first question that contemporary advocates of democratic reform must ask of the historical record is how suffrage rights came to be enlarged at all. To broaden the franchise, legislators and other political leaders who had gained power with a restricted electorate had to agree to expand that electorate. To be sure, not all of them did agree. Opposition to change was commonly fierce, and it took both substantive and procedural forms, such as refusing to convene state constitutional conventions in the first place. Resistance to democratic change often succeeded, at least for a while and often for a long while: it took decades for Rhode Island to get rid of its property requirement, for California to permit Chinese immigrants to vote, and for Congress to pass the Seventeenth and Nineteenth Amendments. Yet things did change; and advocates of reform tended to be successful when at least three of the following factors were clearly present. 1. A broad ideological shift was underway recognizing some new group or groups as legitimate claimants to political rights. Such a shift may indeed have been a prerequisite for reform. Ideological changes were highly visible when property requirements were dropped in the early nineteenth century, as well as with the passage of the 15 th and 19 th amendments and the many reforms pushed through in the 1960s. 2. Substantial grassroots pressure was being applied by the non- enfranchised. Such activity was probably most important in promoting the enfranchisement of women (where it went on for decades) and in the voting rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, but it also played a role in getting rid of property and tax requirements and in the passage of the 23 rd amendment. 3. Military or national defense or diplomatic considerations created pressures for expanding the suffrage. As early as the American revolution and the war of 1812, this dynamic came into play, as militiamen who could not meet the property requirements for voting agitated for their political rights. It was also significant during the rhetorical conflicts of the early Cold War (the disfranchisement of African Americans in the South was an Achilles’ heel in the American claim to stand for democracy in the third world) and in the passage of the 26 th amendment (which lowered the voting age to the age at which men could be drafted into compulsory military service). Notably, Woodrow Wilson urged Congress to pass the 19 th amendment as a “war measure” in order to shore up popular support for American entry into World War I. A variant on this theme is that the participation of disfranchised American citizens in military conflict substantially strengthened their claim to have a “right” to vote, contributing to later reforms. This was true in the wake of the Civil War (for African Americans) as well as after World War II (for African Americans and Native Americans). 4. The dynamics of party competition were such that one political party stood to gain decisively by expanding the suffrage (and had sufficient clout to enact reform by itself) or both parties were reluctant to appear to oppose an expansion. The most vivid instance of the importance of party competition was the passage of the 15 th amendment, written and sponsored by the Republican party in part to provide itself with a base of voters in the South. (To be fair, the Republicans also took a risk of losing votes in the North by backing black suffrage.) Similarly, the early Democratic party knew that it would benefit by dropping property and tax restrictions. Passage of both the 19 th and the 26 th amendments was facilitated by the reluctance of either party (at least in the political endgame) to oppose a suffrage expansion that was likely to occur (sooner or later) anyway – since such opposition could cost votes in the future. The events of the 1960s were riddled with sometimes contradictory partisan calculations, as both parties weighed the advantages of gaining black votes and the risks of losing white votes. 5. Glitches or contradictions in existing electoral laws that simply had to be remedied in one way or another. The foremost example of this impulse to action involved the 26 th amendment: the passage of federal legislation to lower the voting age led to a Supreme Court decision that invalidated the legislation insofar as it applied to state (rather than federal) elections. The nation was then confronted with the nightmarish logistical prospect of needing two different sets of voting rolls, for federal and non-federal elections: the nightmare was banished by the passage, with record speed, of the 26 th amendment. Yet that was not the only instance of the phenomenon. Passage of the 17 th amendment was encouraged by a long series of senatorial elections that were deadlocked in state legislatures, producing no outcome and no representation. In the early 19 th century, many taxpaying requirements for voting were dropped when they became extremely difficult to administer and kicked up knotty conceptual issues (e.g. who was actually paying the tax on a farm that one man rented from another?) 6. There is one instance in which economic self interest seems to have played a clear role in suffrage expansion: in the mid-nineteenth century, numerous state legislatures and constitutional conventions decided to extend the franchise to non-citizens in order to stimulate immigration, increase the tax base, and help pay off the public debt. Although there is no close historical analogy to the “right to vote” amendment that we are currently contemplating, it is worth noting that several of the factors mentioned above are present in contemporary political life, albeit in somewhat pallid or preliminary form. There has, in fact, been a broad ideological shift over the course of the last sixty years in favor of suffrage as a universal right: indeed, most Americans think that suffrage is already a universal right. That may create an opening for political education and mobilization. There also is some grassroots pressure (DC, Puerto Rico, and perhaps around felon disfranchisement), but it is unlikely to become a national mass movement. Furthermore, Bush v. Gore and the actions of the Florida legislature in 2000 make clear that a serious “glitch” or contradiction in electoral processes could surely occur; it is now a “potential glitch” rather than a recurrent one, but savvy political analysts do not want to see a repeat of Election 2000. Most importantly, perhaps, there may be diplomatic or security issues to which a “right to vote” amendment could meaningfully be linked. These include: 1) avoiding a possible electoral crisis that would de-legitimize a national administration in an era of widespread international conflict; and 2) providing an expression of the United States’ commitment to democracy in a form recognized in most other nations and in international declarations and conventions of human rights. Constitutional Amendments versus Other Strategies for Reform As noted earlier, the first federal amendments dealing with the right to vote were passed just after the Civil War. (Amendments to abolish or alter the Electoral College began to be proposed early in the nineteenth century but, as we have noticed, they were never passed.) Until the late 1860s, all of the action was at the state level, and the breadth of the franchise came to be regarded as one of the most zealously guarded states’ rights.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • High School Voter Registration FAQ
    High School Voter Registration FAQ Do you need to be 18 years old to register to vote? No. Although laws vary from state to state, all states let at least some 17 year olds register. Most states only require that a person be at least 18 years of age by the next election. Some set more specific deadlines, such as 17 years and six months, and two states, Florida and Hawaii, even allow people to register at 16 years of age. Do some places already use this type of registration system? Although the 1993 National Voter Registration Act increased access to voter registration materials, governments in the United States still do little to educate voters or encourage voter participation. While many of these other governments use other government records such as a national citizen registry, basing a registration system in high schools is more practical in the United States due to the decentralized nature of our electoral system. Does High School Registration work at either the state or local level? Yes. While it would be great to have entire states using this system, local governments have the authority to implement high school registration at a local level. Local programs would potentially increase participation in local elections, especially ones that directly affect schools, and could also serve as a pilot program for implementation at the state level. I like the idea of helping high school students register to vote; however, I am uncomfortable with making registration a requirement. First of all, remember that compulsory registration is not the same as compulsory voting.
    [Show full text]
  • Women and the Presidency
    Women and the Presidency By Cynthia Richie Terrell* I. Introduction As six women entered the field of Democratic presidential candidates in 2019, the political media rushed to declare 2020 a new “year of the woman.” In the Washington Post, one political commentator proclaimed that “2020 may be historic for women in more ways than one”1 given that four of these woman presidential candidates were already holding a U.S. Senate seat. A writer for Vox similarly hailed the “unprecedented range of solid women” seeking the nomination and urged Democrats to nominate one of them.2 Politico ran a piece definitively declaring that “2020 will be the year of the woman” and went on to suggest that the “Democratic primary landscape looks to be tilted to another woman presidential nominee.”3 The excited tone projected by the media carried an air of inevitability: after Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, despite receiving 2.8 million more popular votes than her opponent, ever more women were running for the presidency. There is a reason, however, why historical inevitably has not yet been realized. Although Americans have selected a president 58 times, a man has won every one of these contests. Before 2019, a major party’s presidential debates had never featured more than one woman. Progress toward gender balance in politics has moved at a glacial pace. In 1937, seventeen years after passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, Gallup conducted a poll in which Americans were asked whether they would support a woman for president “if she were qualified in every other respect?”4 * Cynthia Richie Terrell is the founder and executive director of RepresentWomen, an organization dedicated to advancing women’s representation and leadership in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • City Council Election Methods in Order to Ensure That the Election Please Do Not Hesitate to Contact Us
    The Center for Voting and Democracy City 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610 – Takoma Park, MD 20912 Phone: (301) 270-4616 – Fax: (301) 270-4133 Council Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.fairvote.org Election This Manual is intended to assist Charter Review Comissions, city officials, and other community Methods leaders in determining what electoral systems will best meet the needs and goals of their community. Given that no system can accomplish every goal, this manual will help you analyze the INTRODUCTION consequences of adopting one system over The range of options that exists for electing a municipal government is broader than many people realize. Voting systems can have a another and will aid you in comparing the features striking impact on the type of candidates who run for office, how of various electoral systems. representative the council is, which candidates are elected, which parties control the city council, which voters feel well represented, Should you desire more information about any of and so on. This booklet is intended to aid in the evaluation of possible the voting systems discussed within this manual, city council election methods in order to ensure that the election please do not hesitate to contact us. method is determined by conscious choice, not inertia. A separate companion booklet, Mayoral Election Methods , deals with the selection of an executive. A summary of this booklet can be found in the city council election method evaluation grid at Page 11. 1 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING CITY COUNCIL ELECTION METHODS 1. VOTER CHOICE Different election methods will encourage different numbers of It is important to recognize from the outset that no election candidates to run, and will thus impact the level of choice which method is perfect.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Picks the President?
    Who Picks the President? A report by FairVote – The Center for Voting and Democracy’s Presidential Elections Reform Program www.fairvote.org/presidential Executive Summary Who Picks the President? provides information on where major party presidential campaigns and allied groups spent money on television ads and where the major party candidates for president and vice-president traveled in the peak season of the 2004 campaign. This data is combined into an “attention index” that measures a state’s relative attention on a per capita basis. The results show that voters in seven states received the bulk of the attention, receiving more than four times the attention they would have received if every voter were treated equally. Voters in an additional seven states received more attention than the national average, while voters in 37 states (counting the District of Columbia) received less attention than the national average, including 19 states that received no attention at all. Among key findings: 1) The attention index for the 25 th -highest ranked state, Tennessee, was 0.04 – meaning voters in the median state received 1/25 th the attention of what they would have likely received if every voter were treated equally. 2) In per capita terms, the states receiving the most attention were Iowa, Ohio and New Hampshire. In absolute terms, the three states were Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. 3) 23 states had zero television ads, while just three states had more than 52% of all the ads shown during peak campaign season. Florida had 55,477 ads while California, New York and Texas had a combined total of only seven ads.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving the Top-Two Primary for Congressional and State Races
    Towards a More Perfect Election: Improving the Top-Two Primary for Congressional and State Races CHENWEI ZHANG* I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 615 1I. B ACKGROUN D ................................................................................ 620 A. An Overview of the Law RegardingPrimaries ....................... 620 1. Types of Primaries............................................................ 620 2. Supreme Court JurisprudenceRegarding Political Partiesand Primaries....................................................... 622 B. The Evolution of the Top-Two Primary.................................. 624 1. A laska................................................................................ 62 5 2. L ouisiana .......................................................................... 625 3. California ......................................................................... 626 4. Washington ............................. ... 627 5. O regon ........................................... ................................... 630 I1. THE PROS AND CONS OF Top-Two PRIMARIES .............................. 630 A . P ros ......................................................................................... 63 1 1. ModeratingEffects ............................................................ 631 2. Increasing Voter Turnout................................................... 633 B . C ons ....................................................................................... 633
    [Show full text]
  • LWV”) Has Been a Leader in the Fight for Fair and Transparent Elections and Good Governance
    How Alaska Ballot Measure 2 advances the goals of the League of Women Voters Shea Siegert Yes on 2 Campaign Manager July 10, 2020 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since its founding in 1920, the League of Women Voters (“LWV”) has been a leader in the fight for fair and transparent elections and good governance. As part of that effort, its chapters have taken positions on legislation and ballot initiatives across the country on a range of reforms. In June of 2020, LWV held a vote of concurrence on a position regarding “Voter Representation ​ ​ and Electoral Systems.” This action established eight criteria for assessing whether a proposed electoral reform should be endorsed by local LWV chapters. Those criteria are: Whether for single or multiple winner contests, the League supports electoral methods that: Encourage voter participation and voter engagement Encourage those with minority opinions to participate, including under-represented communities Are verifiable and auditable Promote access to voting Maximize effective votes/minimize wasted votes Promote sincere voting over strategic voting Implement alternatives to plurality voting Are compatible with acceptable ballot-casting methods, including vote-by-mail The 2020 vote of concurrence was taken by 1,400 delegates from LWV Chapters from across the country and was approved by 93% of delegates, far exceeding the two-thirds threshold required to establish a position of concurrence. This document seeks to demonstrate that Alaska Ballot Measure 2 is fully aligned with the eight criteria established in June. We reviewed 30 studies, statements and positions from LWV chapters along with supporting academic studies and research from organizations like Represent Women, Representation2020, Fairvote, and others.
    [Show full text]
  • Expanding Voting Rights
    POLICY BRIEF // Local Progress: THE national MUnicipal POLICY networK Expanding Voting Rights THE PROBLEM “Have you ever gone to a high Civic participation in the United States remains dismal school and stood in the background compared to other advanced democracies. Low turnout, plus and watched these high school stu- the denial of voting rights to youth, non-citizens, and many ex-felons, means that only 57.5% of eligible voters voted dents run a voter registration drive? It is in the 2012 presidential election, 93 million eligible voters very encouraging and motivating . You did not, and another 96 million residents were ineligible to vote.1 Furthermore, voter turnout is dramatically lower in not only see, but also feel, a sense of de- non-presidential elections. Mayors are often elected with mocracy at work.” single-digit turnout and scholars estimate that local elections — Arizona State Official, Office of the Secretary of State generate an average turnout of approximately 25-30% of the 5 voting age population.2 provide their tenants with voter registration forms. These The economic dimension of this problem is significant: in laws will help the cities’ large number of college students 2010, “only 40% of those whose family income was less than register and stay registered to vote. Such requirements are $50,000 turned out, compared to 60% of those from house- also valuable because renters are disproportionately lower- holds earning more than $75,000.”3 This gap in voting is income and/or people of color. aggravated by the influence of corporate lobbying and spend- Local governments can also play a key role in ensuring that ing on elections and has profound consequences for public high school students register to vote when they become eli- policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Document Received by the CA Supreme Court. Supreme CA the by Received Document the Honorable Tani G
    Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 T +1 202 637 5600 F +1 202 637 5910 www.hoganlovells.com September 10, 2020 The Honorable Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, Chief Justice and Honorable Associate Justices California Supreme Court 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Re: Santa Monica v. Pico Neighborhood Association, S263972 Letter Supporting Petition for Review Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Associate Justices: FairVote files this letter as amicus curiae pursuant to Rule 8.500(g) of the California Rules of Court and urges this Court to grant the petition for review. I. Interest of Amicus Curiae FairVote is a non-profit organization headquartered in Takoma Park, Maryland that advocates for fairer political representation through election reform. Since its founding in 1992, FairVote has been committed to advancing ranked- choice voting in both single-member-district and at-large voting systems. It does so by conducting original research and advocating for electoral reforms at the local, state, and national levels. FairVote believes that implementing alternative at-large remedies, including ranked-choice and cumulative voting, will allow voters to elect representatives who better reflect their communities’ and society’s diversity. FairVote encourages public officials, judges, and voters seeking to address unlawful vote dilution to also consider other ways to conduct elections. FairVote has participated as amicus curiae in cases involving issues of vote dilution under the California Voting Rights Act and the federal Voting Rights Act. (See, e.g., Sanchez v. City of Modesto (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 660; United States v.
    [Show full text]
  • A Better Way to Vote
    WEEK OF May 17, 2004 • VOL. XXVII, NO. 20 A Better Way to Vote BY JOHN B. A QUICK TUTORIAL ANDERSON AND ROBERT RICHIE Every 10 years the U.S. Census releases new population fig- ures, and elected officials set to work carving up the political landscape into new legislative districts with equal numbers of he Supreme Court’s constituents. Armed with increasingly sophisticated software decision last month and more precise demographic data, incumbents in most states Partisan Tin Vieth v. Jubilirer quite literally choose the voters before the voters choose them. to uphold Pennsylvania’s con- Most voters are locked into one-party districts where their only gressional redistricting plan real choice is to ratify the party’s nominee. demands that we confront an In 2001, both Republicans and Democrats elevated incumbent gerrymanders, uncomfortable fact: We must protection to new heights. In California, incumbent U.S. House either change our winner- Democrats paid $20,000 apiece to a redistricting consultant for take-all electoral system or “designer districts.” Republicans accepted this cozy arrangement accept the degradation of in exchange for their own safe seats. The result in 2002 was 50 winner-take-all democracy. incumbent landslides, with no challenger winning even 40 per- No justice disputed that cent of the vote. Nationally, only four challengers defeated Pennsylvania Republicans had House incumbents, the fewest in history. For the third consecu- elections, pursued an aggressive partisan tive election, fewer than one in 10 House races were won by gerrymander nor that legislators competitive margins. around the nation draw partisan The lockdown of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • League of Women Voters Positions on Ranked Voting Methods (IRV and Choice Voting)
    League of Women Voters positions on Ranked Voting Methods (IRV and Choice Voting) ARIZOA The League of Women Voters of Arizona believes in the election system principle of greater vote representation. The LWVAZ maintains the hope that election system reform that provides a stronger voice for the greatest number of voters should have a positive effect on voter participation. Therefore, the LWVAZ: • Supports changing the present election systems so that they more accurately represent the wishes of voters: • Adopting the Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)system for single seat races; • Adopting proportional representation for multi-seat races, specifically Ranked Choice Voting. • Believes that education of the voting public is important to election systems. • Supports giving Arizona voters the option of more choice among election systems. Consensus 2005, Amended 2008 CALIFORIA Election Systems Position Support election systems for executive offices, both at the state and local levels, that require the winner to receive a majority of the votes, as long as the majority is achieved using a voting method such as Instant Runoff Voting, rather than a second, separate runoff election. Adopted 2001; Modified 2003; Readopted at last convention. FLORIDA Following statewide local League consensus meetings, the League of Women Voters of Florida announced a new Election Law, Voting Process position making the method of instant runoff voting a recommended alternative to plurality voting. MASSACHUSETTS VOTING SYSTEMS GOAL: Voting systems should be easy to use, administer and understand, encourage high voter turnout, encourage real discussion on issues, promote minority representation, and encourage candidates to run. When electing someone to a single executive office at the state level, such as governor or attorney general, including primary and general elections, the voting system should require the winner to obtain a majority of the votes.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Elections with Instant Runoff Voting
    FAIRVOTE: THE CENTER FOR VOTING & DEMOCRACY | WWW.FAIRVOTE.ORG | (301) 270-4616 Improving Elections with Instant Runoff Voting Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) - Used for both government and private elections around the United States and the world, instant runoff voting is a simple election process used to avoid the expense, difficulties and shortcomings of runoff elections. Compared to the traditional “delayed” runoff, IRV saves taxpayers money, cuts the costs of running campaigns, elects public officials with higher voter turnout and encourages candidates to run less negative campaigns. How instant runoff voting works: • First round of counting: The voters rank their preferred candidate first and may also rank additional choices (second, third, etc.). In the first round of counting, the voters’ #1 choices are tallied. A candidate who receives enough first choices to win outright (typically a majority) is declared the winner. However, other candidates may have enough support to require a runoff – just as in traditional runoff systems. • Second round: If no one achieves a clear victory, the runoff occurs instantly. The candidate with the fewest votes is removed and the votes made for that candidate are redistributed using voters’ second choices. Other voters’ top choices remain the same. The redistributed votes are added to the counts of the candidates still in competition. The process is repeated until one candidate has majority support. The benefits: Instant runoff voting (IRV) would do everything the current runoff system does to ensure that the winner has popular support – but it does it in one election rather than two. • Saves localities, taxpayers and candidates money by holding only one election.
    [Show full text]
  • LPF V. FEC (20-649) Brief of Amicus Curiae Fairvote in Support Of
    No. 20-649 In the Supreme Court of the United States LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD, PETER ACKERMAN, GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES, and LIBERTARIAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, INC., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE FAIRVOTE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS ANDREW S. PENROSE WILLIAM P. TEDARDS, JR. FAIRVOTE Counsel of Record 6930 Carroll Avenue, 1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 240 Suite 500 Takoma Park, MD 20912 Washington, DC 20007 (301) 270-4616 (202) 744-1214 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae FairVote December 14, 2020 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . iii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE . 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . 2 Exclusion of Non-Major Party Candidates From the CPD Debates . 3 ARGUMENT . 6 I. THE CPD OPERATES AS A PARTISAN ORGANIZATION UNDER THE EXPRESS DIRECTION OF THE MAJOR PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS, IN CONTRAVENTION OF 11 C.F.R. § 110.13(a)(1). 6 The MOU Eliminates Any Doubt That the CPD Operates as a Partisan Organization . 9 II. THE 15% POLLING REQUIREMENT, AS APPLIED BY THE CPD TO FREEZE THE POLITICAL STATUS QUO, IS NOT AN “OBJECTIVE” STANDARD WITHIN THE MEANING OF 11 C.F.R. § 110.13(c) . 10 A. The 15% Polling Requirement Freezes the Political Status Quo . 11 ii B. Polling Data Is Increasingly Unreliable . 13 C. The 15% Polling Requirement is Not in Accord With Debate Inclusion Standards in the U.S. or Abroad . 20 CONCLUSION . 25 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Anderson v.
    [Show full text]